|
I was under the impression that the EMP of small yield devices is rather limited as the effects scale with yield (although high, or pure fission fraction bombs should perform relatively better than large boosted or multi-stage ones). An early implosion type weapon mated to a slap dash rocket isn't going to black out the entire US western seaboard.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 11:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
My middle school library had this in it for some reason http://archive.org/details/nuclearwarwhatsi00grou Pretty heavy reading for an 11 year old.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
When I was 11, I read a book titled Fire Lance with this amazingly bad-rear end cover of a warship with 2 ICBMs in some sort of deck launcher. A quarter of the way through the book death squads are executing people on the ship and the book ends with everyone freezing to death during a nuclear winter. Good times. edit: http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Lance-David-Mace/dp/0441235883
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I was under the impression that the EMP of small yield devices is rather limited as the effects scale with yield (although high, or pure fission fraction bombs should perform relatively better than large boosted or multi-stage ones). An early implosion type weapon mated to a slap dash rocket isn't going to black out the entire US western seaboard. Type of device doesn't matter so much as yield and altitude. So your bomb goes off and you get a short pulse of gamma rays coming out of the nuclear reactions, it's a very short-duration pulse because the actual nuclear detonation itself is very short. Those gamma rays Compton-scatter electrons out of the atoms in the surrounding atmosphere, and those electrons fly off with enough energy to scatter additional electrons, etc, each gamma ray starts a process that scatters thousands of electrons out of their atoms. At low altitudes, what happens is that since the electrons are moving so much faster than their "parent" atoms they spread out, which means charge separation which means a strong electric field. The earth closes the circuit, letting electrons flow back to the region of positive charge, and that current flow generates a very strong EM pulse, like 100 gigawatts of power over that short time it exists. But unless it's a *big* bomb, this doesn't really matter because if you're close enough to be affected by the pulse you're dead anyway. At high altitudes, it's different. The air's thinner so the gamma rays travel considerably further before hitting electrons, which means the region of ionization is much larger, and the electrons spiral around in the earth's magnetic field, and that's what generates the pulse, and you also get a big electric field between the surface and the ionized region which lasts until all those electrons slow down enough to recombine with ionized atoms. The field strengths are much smaller than for surface bursts, but the region affected is much larger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
I can strongly recommend "The fate of the Earth" by J. Schell for excellent descriptions of the effects of nuclear weapons and fallout. Heavily depressing though, and the final third of the book veers off and rambles about the moral issues around nuclear weaponry, but the first 2/3rds is purestrain scientific terror. I would love to be able to read into the science research behind threads, it had such an amazing team behind it. Would also love to know if they used the yield/number of weapons that "Square Leg" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Square_Leg) indicated in their calculations, because 131 weapons with a total of 205 Megatons seems low compared to other estimates, yet so devastating in the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:My middle school library had this in it for some reason My high school history teacher required every one of his classes to read some or all of that book. It was depressing but the real fun-killer was realizing that in the larger picture, the current situation might be the best outcome we could hope for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Anyone want some F18s and A7s? Some assembly required... http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/view?auctionId=5871931&convertTo=USD
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Anyone want some F18s and A7s? Some assembly required... More like some disassembly required. Shredding them is a condition of sale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
Get your very own red star tail assembly: http://www.govliquidation.com/shared/auction/images/photos/48447/48446076.jpg Wonder what plane that one's from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Psion posted:Get your very own red star tail assembly: Looks a lot like an F-5 aggressor  more shots of it in the gallery from the other side too. 
priznat fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Yeah, I figured it was an aggressor plane, just couldn't match the tail. I think you're right. It'd be  if it were a Constant Peg MiG, but also completely implausible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
An interesting cold war b-52 wreckage anniversary is coming up. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the wreckage was just left there. I would imagined extraction would be difficult. http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Fateful-Maine-flight-salvaged-B-52s-50-years-ago-4190379.php#page-1
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Psion posted:It'd be Several of those (along with some of the Systems Command technical exploitation jets from the various Have programs) wound up in museums, the rest were scrapped and supposedly buried in the desert. There's a story (I think it's in Davies's book, might be Peck's, I can't remember for sure) about a Red Eagle who was taking his family to a museum (IIRC it was the AF museum at Wright-Pat) in the mid '90s, so after the program had shut down and the jets were distributed out/destroyed but well before it was declassified, where one of his kids noticed that his name was still stenciled on the side of the ostensibly Soviet jet. IIRC an awkward "uhhhh....someone must be playing a joke" conversation ensued with the family, followed by a quiet suggestion to the curator that the name be painted over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Was there a Soviet equivalent? Did someone ever hijack an F-16 and fly it to Moscow?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:Was there a Soviet equivalent? Did someone ever hijack an F-16 and fly it to Moscow? There was the Tu-4 program, based on the B-29s that landed inside the Soviet Union. As far as defections, the western pilots generally weren't flying the most advanced aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cold_War_pilot_defections
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:There was the Tu-4 program, based on the B-29s that landed inside the Soviet Union. Three Cessnas  Though, this is completely uncited apparently: quote:On 31 August 1986 an Iranian top-line F-14A Tomcat fighter armed with at least one AIM-54A landed in Iraq. An Iraqi military spokesman identified the pilot and Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) as Major Ahmed Murad Talibi and Captain Hassan Nagafi Habibullah. Upon landing, the aircraft was surrounded by up to 20 US technicians, who took care of it and the defecting pilot, while the WSO who had opposed the defection became an Iraqi POW, later released with other prisoners (the pilot was later killed in Europe). The F-14A along with the aforementioned F-4E were flown to Saudi Arabia by US pilots, who insisted that they first be inspected and repaired by US technicians. After being thoroughly examined, both aircraft were destroyed and buried in the desert.[citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:There was the Tu-4 program, based on the B-29s that landed inside the Soviet Union. Of course, those were the result of combat damage or other fuckups, not actual defections by the B-29 aircrews.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Also at the time the Soviets were supposedly our allies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:There was the Tu-4 program, based on the B-29s that landed inside the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Also at the time the Soviets were supposedly our allies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
grover posted:But where's the list of western defections? Virtually all of those are people defecting from socialist or islamic paradises. (Or in the case of the Netherlands, both) Where are all the defections from UK, France, West Germany, etc? Surely the only defections of US jets didn't come from the middle eastern despots we sold them to?  They're on that list. Germany has one from the West, and there were several South Koreans and Americans who defected as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
grover posted:defecting from socialist or islamic paradises. (Or in the case of the Netherlands, both) What
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
You're surprised Grover would make a racist joke?
Forums Terrorist fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:
(Worth noting that the P-51 was obsolete and retired from the US inventory the same year the South Korean defected in it; UK had given a handful P-51s to USSR during WWII, too.) movax posted:Three Cessnas grover fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
grover posted:US knew better by that point, and had already refused to sell USSR B-29s. US never really trusted USSR; they just feared Nazi Germany a lot more. Hence the "supposedly."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
grover posted:Oops, missed that west german cessna. So, the grand total of defections from the west (including South Korea) are 4 cessnas, 2 pipers, a beechcraft and a P-51? Didn't America give Iraq a hand in the Iran-Iraq War?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
A much older operational history of the F-14 that I have (IIRC, it was published well before the F-14D's retirement in 2006) mentions several shootdowns by Iraq and one defection by an Iranian F-14 pilot to the Soviet Union, but nothing about an Iranian defection to Iraq. edit: freaking letters man StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:An interesting cold war b-52 wreckage anniversary is coming up. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the wreckage was just left there. I would imagined extraction would be difficult. All the big pieces of the fuselage are long since hauled away and many of the pieces currently at the site were recovered from locals who had collected them for scrap and/or mementos. It's still a hell of a place to visit, I think I posted up a bunch of pictures from last June when we went.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Didn't America give Iraq a hand in the Iran-Iraq War? Lots of intelligence and a few other under the table things, as well as indirect support through the Tanker War with Iran. They repaid us by putting two Exocet sized holes in the Stark. But I don't think there would really be any reason for US technicians to be at an Iraqi airport, since the bulk of Iraq's aircraft fleet at the time was Soviet and French. Also 20 technicians would be a pretty large number to be at a single airport for a "technical assistance/consulting" type contract, so the only way that number makes any sense is if U.S. techs were there performing day to day line maintenance on Iraq's fleet (composed primarily of Soviet and French aircraft), which would be pretty ludicrous. Regarding the Red Eagles, I remembered one other amusing story about inadvertent disclosures...one of the pilots had to undergo some sort of medical operation where he had to be put under, and that involved him being on pretty heavy painkillers for several days afterwards. When he was coming off the anesthesia/on the painkillers he started rambling about flying MiGs and the program. They had to detail someone who was read in on the program to babysit him 24/7, to try and keep him as isolated as possible when he was mumbling about classified programs and to be around to start cracking jokes about the crazy doped up pilot who apparently dreams of flying MiGs in case there was an uncleared individual around when he was rambling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21074699 Well poo poo maybe there are no buried Spitfires in Burma 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21074699 I had two great-uncles that swore up and down they saw similar stuff happen at two US airbases in the UK, with crated jeeps and other equipment. Then again, one of them claimed constantly to have seen several people "blown away by a nazi '88" despite never leaving the UK
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21074699 That article says nothing whatsoever. They haven't dug anything up yet, that's all that's known at this point. A-No Spitfires have been recovered B-? C-No airplanes are there There's no B presented, unless it's the PR guy's statement, who doesn't actually know anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21074699 10 minutes after the airbase was closed the locals probably dug them up for scrap. In Iraq when there was a couple of day gap before the Iraqi army/police actually manned a base handed over to them it was totally picked clean. Think the hescos and concrete walls were the only thing left.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
Can anyone explain to me the joke [Two Soviet Army Colonels are drinking in Paris, one of them asks the other: "Who won the air war?"]? -Obvious implication is that the WARPACT won. -But how could they win if they didn't gain at least local air superiority? I was reading a book by Ralph Peters called "The Red Army" and I hope this is the right thread for this sort of speculation, but in it basically the cold war turns hot. We don't really know for why until the end, (the ultimate reason was kinda lame "Because we could" but it beats 'Stan Muslem terrorists blowing up a oil refinery.) but it basically takes place over a three-four day period in which the Soviet Army attempts to race across the Fulda Gap to the Wesner. The plan is basically "encircle the Germans before they request nuclear release." in a double envelopment, the encircle plan I actually really like as its the kind of plans I could even envision when playing milsims like Hearts of Iron. You attack the flanks to draw reserves away from the center where your real attack comes through which now leaves two or three smaller encirclements on the flanks. A lot of luck falls on the Soviets by design, the author claims a lot of NATO-WWIII books tend to be just as lucky for NATO so he was just answering that. Its rather short though, maybe 130 pages without much plot with a lot of shocking character deaths that served no narrative purpose. Anyone else read it? I really liked it and was there any chance the author would've been right if in 1987 or so the Soviets decided to play for keeps right then and there? I really liked it, first time I ever see The Soviets win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
It's hard to kill tanks from the air. Any platform that is flying steadily enough to lock a missile on a tank is easy pickings for SAMs. There's a reason the US built special platforms like the AH-64 and A-10 to kill tanks. The Soviet armored force was so large that it could take the attrition of air attacks and push on to its objectives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:It's hard to kill tanks from the air. Any platform that is flying steadily enough to lock a missile on a tank is easy pickings for SAMs. There's a reason the US built special platforms like the AH-64 and A-10 to kill tanks. The Soviet armored force was so large that it could take the attrition of air attacks and push on to its objectives. Then why, for example, was the Russian army unable to maintain air superiority over say...Georgia? Despite the presence of a great deal of air defenses and air superiority aircraft the small number of Georgian Su-25s continued attacks with relatively few losses until the end of the conflict. Also notable that mobile armor, particularly operating on the offense and/or large formations, is much easier to find/kill from the air than those with the luxury of staying hidden in friendly territory (as was the case in Serbia). As are the support elements required to keep said armor mobile. The reason there continues to be a large emphasis on tank killing aircraft and helicopters in both East and West (and for that matter anti-aircraft weapons to protect against them) is that they are actually quite good at the job. In regards to the Soviet army simply having so many tanks that they could just absorb losses and steamroll over everything - they really didn't. They actually had comparatively few high quality AFVs (T-80 series, upgraded T-64s, T-72B). The bulk of their "modern" armor was mid-range T-72/72As, T-64A/B, and T-62s which were of similar quality to what was seen in the first Iraq war and even those weren't especially numerous in comparison to NATO AFVs. Even if you count the T-55s, which made up more than half the armor available (yet were already obsolete in the era of the M48 Patton), the Soviets never enjoyed the kind of numerical superiority/qualitative equality they had with the Germans during WWII. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Can anyone explain to me the joke [Two Soviet Army Colonels are drinking in Paris, one of them asks the other: "Who won the air war?"]? Of course they'd have needed local air superiority at times, or maybe contested airspace through and through. Nowhere does the joke implicate that it couldn't have well been that way for them. I think it's of a more whimsical nature. quote:I was reading a book by Ralph Peters called "The Red Army"... Anyone else read it? I really liked it and was there any chance the author would've been right if in 1987 or so the Soviets decided to play for keeps right then and there? Red Army is my favorite Cold War turned hot alt history novel together with Chieftains by Bob Forrest-Webb. Both are way better than Clancy's wankathon, Hackett who was in need of way better editing and some historical perspective, Coyle's miniscule focus and that Canadian book which just bores the reader to death. 1987 is a poo poo year as a setting since the big leadership change had already happened in the SU and their economic rot was undeniable even to the politburo. This wasn't as apparant to the West then as it is in hindsight so authors just extrapolated their view on the 'big bad reds' well into the time that they had gotten clay feet. I've always felt that Peters' scenario works well for a late 70s/early 80s conflict though. Except for the fact that it would have gone nuclear pronto but hey that's a whole different genre. Warbadger posted:Then why, for example, was the Russian army unable to maintain air superiority over say...Georgia? Despite the presence of a great deal of air defenses and air superiority aircraft the small number of Georgian Su-25s continued attacks with relatively few losses until the end of the conflict. AFAIK that squadron of Georgian Su-25s did gently caress all after day 1 and were wheeled away to the south (I can't remember where the link to the big independent Russian AAR is). As for the massive interfacing problems they had between VVS and Land Forces in '08, how exactly does that relate to a hypothetical WWIII? quote:Also notable that mobile armor, particularly operating on the offense and/or large formations, is much easier to find/kill from the air than those with the luxury of staying hidden in friendly territory (as was the case in Serbia). As are the support elements required to keep said armor mobile. Very true. Warsaw Pact land forces did have a large number of dedicated AA assets for exactly that kind of thing though. quote:In regards to the Soviet army simply having so many tanks that they could just absorb losses and steamroll over everything - they really didn't. They actually had comparatively few high quality AFVs (T-80 series, upgraded T-64s, T-72B). The bulk of their "modern" armor was mid-range T-72/72As, T-64A/B, and T-62s which were of similar quality to what was seen in the first Iraq war and even those weren't especially numerous in comparison to NATO AFVs. Even if you count the T-55s, which made up more than half the armor available (yet were already obsolete in the era of the M48 Patton), the Soviets never enjoyed the kind of numerical superiority/qualitative equality they had with the Germans during WWII. T-55s obsolete compared to the M48? That's bullshit. Also, what'd NATO actually have to offer against your so-called mid-range tanks? In 1980 it would have been mostly L7 armed Leo 1s, M60s and Centurions which at moderate range were non-penetrating in the frontal arc against everything up from a T-64 (already present in large numbers in the GSFG). Hell, before '86 there isn't even a 120mm armed Abrams although NATO allegedly got their penetrator quality up to speed for the 105s. Fully decking out the Bundeswehr with Leopard 2s took more than a decade, during which the GSFG had more than one entire turnover of tanks from early model T-64s and T-62s (in MRDs and the odd independent battalion/brigade) through upgraded models into ERA equipped tanks finishing up with 90% T-80s and later model -72s in forward formations. Not that it didn't directly lead to the fall and partition of their empire, but those tens of percents of GDP actually went somewhere to the point where you had yearly production of military vehicles alone numbering in the tens of thousands. It's really cool and all to try and retroactively apply Desert Stom lessons to Europe in the decades before but a schizophrenic force structure, monkey models and lovely Iraqi training and command are actually a thing. The Soviet Military was a force to be reckoned up until the moment political and societal strains ended it for good. The Russian Military is now but a shell of its predecessor. And still all of which I've written is a bit of a wankfest because it doesn't: A. take into account the exact place, timeframe, and more importantly, lead-up to a war and B. Nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons) nuclear weapons Koesj fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Koesj posted:T-55s obsolete compared to the M48? That's bullshit. Also, what'd NATO actually have to offer against your so-called mid-range tanks? In 1980 it would have been mostly L7 armed Leo 1s, M60s and Centurions which at moderate range were non-penetrating in the frontal arc against everything up from a T-64 (already present in large numbers in the GSFG). Holy poo poo. I had no idea Soviet tanks had the edge on NATO until that late; I always figured NATO tanks were at least on par with whatever the Warsaw pact was fielding, and that the only real advantage the communists had was numbers. Koesj posted:The Soviet Military was a force to be reckoned up until the moment political and societal strains ended it for good. The Russian Military is now but a shell of its predecessor. Just to add to this: By the 1980s, environmental damage caused by the Soviets would have been a signifigant drag as well. According to this book I have, Ecocide in the USSR, two out of every 5 draftees heading into the military were found to be unfit to serve, mostly due to health problems caused by horrible soviet pollution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Koesj posted:AFAIK that squadron of Georgian Su-25s did gently caress all after day 1 and were wheeled away to the south (I can't remember where the link to the big independent Russian AAR is). As for the massive interfacing problems they had between VVS and Land Forces in '08, how exactly does that relate to a hypothetical WWIII? By "did gently caress all" do you mean "continued to fly missions involving shooting at and bombing Russians"? Given that there were only 10 such aircraft in the Georgian inventory they obviously had a rather limited effect. In the late 80s the Soviet/Russian military wasn't exactly in tip-top shape. I don't think you'll find that they were enormously better "interfaced" than the 2008 Russian military. Arguably even less so. Koesj posted:Very true. Warsaw Pact land forces did have a large number of dedicated AA assets for exactly that kind of thing though. So did the russians in 2008. Hence the example. Koesj posted:T-55s obsolete compared to the M48? That's bullshit. The T-55 was obsolete compared to the M48. The Soviets determined that while the mid-50s M48 could penetrate the T-55 anywhere except the front of the turret at long distances, the T-55's D-10T gun was inadequate against either the M48s frontal hull (275mm at LOS) or turret. To highlight this point, the top of the line 3BM6 projectile developed in 1967 for the D-10T could still only penetrate around 290mm - just barely enough. Its inadequacy against the M48/Centurion combined with the continual delays that plagued the T-64 program are the only reason the T-62 even exists. They needed a better gun but the T-55 could not fit a better gun so they stretched the chassis and produced the T-62 as a stopgap tank to replace the T-55s until the T-64 could be deployed in significant numbers. And that doesn't even get into factors like the T-55s having incredibly dated FCS/optics/etc. by the 1980s. Koesj posted:Also, what'd NATO actually have to offer against your so-called mid-range tanks? In 1980 it would have been mostly L7 armed Leo 1s, M60s and Centurions which at moderate range were non-penetrating in the frontal arc against everything up from a T-64 (already present in large numbers in the GSFG). Hell, before '86 there isn't even a 120mm armed Abrams although NATO allegedly got their penetrator quality up to speed for the 105s. Fully decking out the Bundeswehr with Leopard 2s took more than a decade, during which the GSFG had more than one entire turnover of tanks from early model T-64s and T-62s (in MRDs and the odd independent battalion/brigade) through upgraded models into ERA equipped tanks finishing up with 90% T-80s and later model -72s in forward formations. In the given year (1987 was the year given - not sure why you used 1980) anything with an 105mm L7 gun or better could pop holes in the front of a non-ERA T-64 or (especially) T-72. *Maybe* even an early model T-80. The Soviet ERA did not offer substantial protection against kinetic penetrators until Kontackt-5, which entered service with the T-80U in 1985. K-5 also happens to require specialized mounts built into the hull/turret and could not simply be retrofitted to older tanks. So in 1987 the threats against the mid-range tanks would have been upgraded M48s, M60 (any version), Leopard 1 (any version), Leopard 2, Chieftain, Challenger, AMX-30, M1, and M1A1. Plus a huge gamut of anti-tank weapons used by infantry or mounted on IFV/APCs. Nebakenezzer posted:Holy poo poo. I had no idea Soviet tanks had the edge on NATO until that late; I always figured NATO tanks were at least on par with whatever the Warsaw pact was fielding, and that the only real advantage the communists had was numbers. They didn't, the firepower/armor advantage see-sawed back and forth approximately every 10-15 years. The largest advantage NATO actually maintained for a really long period of time was in optics/electronic FCS/ammunition after the 70s. For example, the Soviets had consistently poor quality IR/Night optics and the autoloader designs in the T-64/72/80 put severe limitations on the length of kinetic penetrators they could use. If you want a period where the Soviets actually had a clearly defined advantage in armored vehicles, the obvious one would be the mid 60s-70s after the T-64 and T-72 came out but before the various western counterparts/responses were completed. The T-64 brought composite armor, a comparatively decent FCS/stabilizer/etc., and a much bigger gun all in the same package. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
A point to mention though that Warsaw Pact armoured doctrine operated along the lines of Deep Operations which deemphasised tactical superiority for the operational goals; as such having tank on tank combat and proving the victor didn't matter so much in the grand scheme of things if their planning went as it should and the enemy was surrounded from the zerg rush happening at places where the NATO did not have their uber tanks in good numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 05:19
|
|